Using the locus-of-slack logic to determine whether inhibition of return in a cue–target paradigm is delaying early or late stages of processing.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inhibition of return (IOR) is a phenomenon characterized by slower responses to targets at cued locations relative to those at uncued locations. Based on the results of previous research, it has been suggested that IOR affects a process at the input end of the processing continuum when it is generated while the reflexive oculomotor system is suppressed (cf. Satel, Hilchey, Wang, Story, & Klein, 2013). To test this theory, we employed a modified psychological refractory period paradigm designed to elicit input IOR with visual stimuli, allowing us to use the locus-of-slack logic to determine whether an early or late stage of processing was inhibited by IOR. On each trial a visual cue was presented, followed by an auditory target (T1) and visual target (T2) separated by a target-target onset asynchrony (TTOA) of varying lengths (200 ms, 400 ms, or 800 ms). Participants (31 young adults) were instructed to ignore the cue and respond to the targets as quickly and accurately as possible. Eye tracking was used to ensure that participants actively suppressed eye movements during trials. As predicted, the inhibitory effect of the cue was observed at the longest TTOA but not when TTOAs were short, supporting our hypothesis that, when generated while the reflexive oculomotor system is suppressed, IOR affects processing before response selection. (PsycINFO Database Record
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".